Wright, Light From Egyptian Papyri

8/8/2019 Wright, Light From Egyptian Papyri

1/220


2/220


3/220


4/220


5/220


6/220


7/220

LIGHT FROM EGYPTIANPAPYRI


8/220


9/220

LIGHT FROMEGYPTIAN PAPYRION JEWISH HISTORY BEFORE CHRIST

BY THERev. CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, D.D.

Trin. Coll., Dub. ; M.A., Exeter Coll., Oxon ; Ph.D. of the University of Leipzig :Donnellan Lecturer in the University of Dublin (1880-1) ;Bampton Lecturer (1878) ; Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint (1893-7)

in the University of Oxford ;Knight of the Order of the North Star of Sweden

LONDONWILLIAMS AND NORGATE14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN

1908


10/220


11/220

The Right Rev. K. H. GEZELIUS VON SCHEELED.D., Ph.D., LL.D., Bishop of Visby, Gotland

Formerly Professor in the University of Upsala ; Grand Cross of theOrder of the North Star and of the Order of the Griffin ; Member of theNobles' House in the Swedish Parliament, 1865-6, and of the SecondChamber (House of Commons) from 1899 to the present time ; Delegateof H.M. the King of Sweden to the Lutheran Church in America, 1893and 1901, and Palestine, 1898 ; Author of numerous Theological Works,

WITH HIGHEST ESTEEM AND REGARDFROM THE AUTHOR


12/220


13/220

CONTENTSIntroduction . IX

CHAPTER IDiscovery of Aramaic Papyri in Assuan The

Assuan Papyri, edited by Prof. A. H. Sayceand Dr A. E. Cowley of Oxford . . . 1

CHAPTER IIFurther Discovery of Aramaic Papyri at Elephan-tineProf. Sachau's Texts and TranslationsTemple to Yahu built before time of Cambyses,destroyed in b.c 414, ordered to be rebuiltB.C. 408 11

CHAPTER IIIThe three Schismatical Temples(1) That of

Elephantine ; (2) the Onias Temple at Leon-topolis, b.c. 154; (3) the Temple of theSamaritans on Mount Gerizzim . . . 35

CHAPTER IVGreat Events which took place in the EarlyMaccabean Period, not alluded to in the

Book of Daniel ...... 46


14/220

viii ContentsCHAPTER V

PAGEThe Wars depicted in Daniel xi.-xii., and Chronicleup to the Christian era . . . . . 60

CHAPTER VIThe Roll of Antiochus, the Book of Enoch, and

other Apocryphal Writings which speak ofthe Maccabean Era . . . . . 86

CHAPTER VIICritics and their Criticisms . . . . .103Index . . .118Index of Texts 123


15/220

INTRODUCTIONIt is curious to observe the keen manner inwhich reviewers detect casual slips in bookswhich come under their notice, while in theirshort reviews they themselves fall into similarmisadventures. It is even stranger whenreviewers make it manifest that they havenot even skimmed the volumes they professto have read. Several of our American re-viewers took upon them to assert that thework on Daniel and his Prophecies owed itsorigin to a course of lectures delivered inJuly 1905 at the Summer School of NewMilford, Conn., under the patronage ofBishops of the Protestant Episcopal Churchof the United States. Following in the wakeof the American reviewers, a similar assertionwas made by respectable English critics, that


16/220

x Introductionthe book was an expansion of five lecturesdelivered by the writer in Exeter Hall, London,in November and December 1905. That wasalso wrong. See Daniel and its Critics,p. xxxvii. On the latter occasion some of theproof-sheets of the book were actually used bythe writer ; while in America the original MS.was similarly had resort to.

In our remarks in Chap. II. on the Egyptianpapyri which have been lately discovered atAssuan, it must be borne in mind that theliterature on the subject has been consider-ably increased since the present contributionwas in type ; which had been designed to showthe importance of the facts in relation totheir bearing on the Aramaic of the Bookof Daniel and those other parts of the OldTestament writings which have come downto us in that language. New and importantarticles have since then appeared on thesubject. Among these we may mention thearticle in the Church Quarterly Review forApril 1908, and further articles from Professors


17/220

Introduction xiD. H. Miiller, Fraenkel, and Lidzbarski. Thearticle on "Neue jiidische Papyri" by ProfessorTh. Noldeke, in the Zeitschriftfur Assyriologiefor January last, is of special interest ; and wehave added a few notes from it, although by nomeans touched upon all the many points ofinterest which it contains. Professor Noldekeaffirms the great importance of the discovery.Most of our reviewers, even while setting

forth opinions different from our own, haverecognised our fairness to scholars of theopposite school. It is hard, however, to avoidusing general terms, and to abstain entirelyfrom dividing the commentators on the book,more or less, into two opposing camps. Whenthe Editor of the Expository Times can write,as he does, in the closing words of his noticeof our book in the number for last February,"Daniel is a psychological monstrosity, andthe Book of Daniel historically impossible,"what can one do, speaking in general terms,but term scholars who uphold the integrity ofthe book in the main as among the " believing


18/220

xii Introductioncritics," and those who do not as more or less" rationalists " ? We are, however, fully awarethat the beloved Professor Franz Delitzsch ofLeipzig, Professor Ed. Konig of Bonn, the lateDean Farrar, and other Christian scholarshave, alas ! lowered their flag to the advancingtide of modern criticism.

Professor Kautzsch, who is a scholar whomwe much admire, has in his "Abriss derGeschichte des alt-testl. Schrifttums " (ap-pended to his important work, Die heiligeSchriften des Alten Test, ubersetzt) made thefollowing sweeping remark on the Book ofDaniel as a whole:"All difficulties vanishwith one stroke, if one acknowledges the book,as it is in truth, to be a writing of encourage-ment and warning dating from the time ofthe severe persecution of the Jews underAntiochus Epiphanes IV." We have already-expressed our decided difference on that pointin Daniel and his Prophecies, pp. xxi., xxii.In the present work we have gone more fullyinto the matter in Chap. IV.


19/220

Introduction xiiiProfessor Marcus Dods, in his signed review

in the British Weekly, January 18, 1906,maintains with other critics that Daniel's"predictions of events subsequent to theExile are so minutely exact as to betray anacquaintance with the history of the thirdand second centuries B.C." That statementwe categorically deny. It has been sufficientlyrefuted not only in our detailed commentaryon Daniel xi., xii., but also for popular pur-poses in Chap. IV. of this little work. Whenthe learned Scotch Professor asserts that onour hypothesis (for such practical purposesas Professor Kautzsch has suggested) "therewould be two books of Daniel, the one con-taining the previous chapters of the book andthe original version of the prophecy, the othercontaining these same chapters," he seems toforget how unlikely it was that men who hadto hide themselves in the holes of the rocks,and often to tarry long periods in the barrenwilderness, could have carried about withthem entire copies of such a work ; while, on


20/220

xiv Introductionour hypothesis, it would have been easy to takewith them, and to read over in their camps,such a small portion of Daniel as ch. x., xi.,xii., which would have been an encouragementto them in those days of peril. This is,no doubt, hypothesis, and not history, but, aselsewhere pointed out, we have no accountextant of the details of much which took placein those trying days. Our hypothesis is asgood as that accepted by Professor Kautzsch,and tends to afford a good reason why thereshould be then in existence a popular Targumof that portion of Daniel in which theJews were most interested. The hypothesisalso confirms the otherwise strange factthat the terrible attempt to overthrow theJewish religion was not sketched in any" minutely exact " outline, but in such ageneral way that the Jews could easily " readinto" the prophetical description the cruelsufferings they had to undergo in those darkand troublous times.We cannot regard it as a matter of indiffer-


21/220

Introduction xvence whether our Lord accepted the Divineinspiration of Daniel's prophecies or not.We cannot admit, unless under the strong-est possible evidence, that any book, on themodern assumption that its narratives arefictitious, and its prophecies discreditable in-ventions, would have been so often cited byour Lord as the Book of Daniel has been. Ifthe modern interpretation of "the Kenosis"(Phil. ii. 7) of our Lord be true, His teachingas to all matters of " the last things

" must beregarded as unreliable and as containing norevelation on which we can depend. Hecould under such circumstances at the highestbe viewed only as a teacher of " morals " andnot of "heavenly things," which He claimedto be able to reveal.We do not pretend to propound any definitetheory of inspiration. But we maintain thatthe books of the Sacred Scriptures (althoughthey may contain occasional interpolations)are books sui generis, and entitled to beregarded as Divine. The confusions of


22/220

xvi Introductioninterpretation which exist among the mosteminent of the modern Biblical critics oughtnot to be forgotten, nor ought their bare as-sertions to be received as matters of fact.

In a book abounding with difficulties suchas that of Daniel, occasional slips are certainto occur here and there. Hypotheses must beresorted to on various points, and all the detailsof such hypotheses may not be rigidly con-sistent. Such " slips" may be traced in thewritings of the most eminent critics, andtherefore we need not imagine that our work,partially composed under very difficult cir-cumstances, will be found free from mistakes.We could have wished, when our criticshad come across such errors, that they hadalways indicated the page where they occurred.The writer in the Guardian wrote as if wehad really written Hierapolis for Heliopolis,but we have not found where that error is,for in the historical statement which is givenin the volume no such slip does occur.

In conclusion, I must thank my friend, the


23/220

Introduction xviiRev. Professor Margoliouth, D.Litt., for hiskindly reading through the proofs of theearlier portion of the work. His absence inTurkey has hindered his valuable revisionfrom being continued till the end.

CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT.

90 BOLINGBROKE GROVE, LONDON, S.W.10th July 1908.


24/220


25/220

Light from Egyptian PapyriCHAPTER I

THE EARLIER ARAMAIC PAPYRI EDITED BYTHE REV. PROFESSOR SAYCE AND DRA. E. COWLEY

Aramaic potsherds (now technically calledby the Greek plural term oarrpaica), withfragments of Aramaic papyri, have long beendiscovered in considerable quantities in theremains of the city which stood on the southernend of the small island of Elephantine, inUpper Egypt. Elephantine was one of themost southern of the Egyptian fortresses.The island was opposite to Syene, also afortress of considerable strength. Syene wassituated up the Nile, close to the first cataract,and about six or seven miles from the island


26/220

2 Light from Egyptian Papyriof Philse. Owing to the navigation of theNile being commanded by the fortress, theisland, first mentioned among European writersby Herodotus, ii. 36, was garrisoned in turnby Egyptians, Persians, Macedonians, andRomans. Jews seem to have become settledthere shortly after their dispersion by theBabylonians.

Professor A. H. Sayce discovered in 1901 amore than usually perfect roll of Aramaicpapyrus, with a number of ostraca coveredwith Aramaic writing. The papyri thenfound, together with the ostraca, are now inthe Bodleian Library, Oxford. They were pub-lished by Dr A. E. Cowley in the Proceedingsof the Society of Biblical Archaeology for May,June, and November 1903. A little later,discoveries of a similar character were made,and these have been published in a thin folio,entitled Aramaic Papyri discovered at Assuan,edited by A. H. Sayce, with the assistance ofA. E. Cowley, and with appendices by W.Spiegelberg and Seymour de Riccia : London,


27/220

The Earlier Aramaic Papyri 3Alexander Moring, Ltd., 32 George Street,Hanover Square, W., 1906.One of the remarkable facts brought tolight by these papyri published by ProfessorSayce and Dr Cowley is that, not many yearsafter the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebu-chadnezzar, a colony of Jews found their wayto Assuan, at the southern frontiers of Egypt.There they acquired for themselves housesand fields. Some of them carried on trafficas money-lenders, and one might say even asbankers. This is proved from the papyrusmarked L, in which a regular bargain for aloan of money is duly recorded. Carefulstipulations were made for interest to be paidmonthly for the money so lent. Fivewitnesses affixed their signatures to the docu-ment. In those papyri there is mention ofthe house of Yahu (Jehovah) and of analtar 1 upon which sacrifices were dulyoffered.

1 The word used in the papyri for altar is *TON whichis commonly used in the Targums and also in the Aramaic


28/220

4 Light from Egyptian PapyriThese Jews in Elephantine and Syene

appear to have been unfavourable to con-tracting marriage with the heathen aroundthem, although they did not altogether refuseto contract such marriages. They appear tohave kept aloof from the worship of any buttheir own God, although they did not declineto transact business with those who wereworshippers of other gods, and they acceptedoaths made in the names of those gods whomthe native population acknowledged as theirpeculiar deities. In the deeds the Jews aretermed indifferently Jews and Aramaeans.

Professor Sayce and Dr Cowley have inthe introduction, written by the former scholar,given much attention to the code of lawsof the Talmud. Though often used in the sense of an" idol altar/' the usage of the Talmud and Targums showsthat the word might also be used of an altar of the trueGod. Chapel is the rendering adopted by Sayce andCowley in their translation, because those editors werethen uncertain whether it ought to be rendered chapel,synagogue, or altar. The second set of papyri have,however, shown that the word was used also in the moregeneral sense.


29/220

The Earlier Aramaic Papyri 5under which justice was administered. Thenew light cast upon the law of divorce is ofspecial importance. Much information isafforded in the records upon the tenure ofhouse property, while the names of theJewish witnesses are peculiarly interesting, asbeing identical, or similar, to names metwith in the earlier Biblical records. Thenames of persons belonging to other nation-alities mentioned in the documents show aconsiderable blending together of non-Jewishelements. These papyri, moreover, containimportant evidence that the Jews in Upper"Egypt did not look upon themselves as boundby the Law of Deuteronomy, according towhich no altar was to be erected to Jehovahexcept in Jerusalem. See further in nextchapter.

Professor Sayce observes that "the Ara-maean papyri of Assuan possess a unique im-portance owing to the duplicate dates whichthey contain. Not only can the exact year inwhich each was written be ascertained, but.


30/220

6 Light from Egyptian Papyrithanks to the double dating in Egyptian andSyrian months, the exact date of the monthought also to be recoverable." One of thesedeeds was drawn up in the twentieth year ofXerxes I. " The documents, it will be seen,cover a large part of the fifth century B.C.,extending from B.C. 471, nine years only afterthe battle of Salamis, to b.c. 411."The edict of Cyrus permitted the return of

the Jews. The capture of Babylon by Cyrus,which brought about the downfall of theBabylonian Empire, and the establishmentof the Medo-Persian, took place in B.C. 538." Darius the Mede " shortly afterwards receivedthe kingdom of Babylonia from Cyrus. Cyrus,however, remained as lord of the whole empire,using as a general title the higher designationof " king of countries " (see Daniel and itsCritics, pp. 225-227). Hence "the third year ofCyrus king of Persia

"(Dan. x. 1) may in someway have been practically identical with " the

first year of Darius the Mede" (Dan. xi. 1):" Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of


31/220

The Earlier Aramaic Papyri 7the Medes, who was made king over the realmof the Chaldeans " (Dan. ix. 1). The death ofDaniel occurred in all probability a few yearsafter the accession of Cyrus. Cyrus died inB.C. 529, possibly in battle. The account givenby Herodotus, i. 214, cannot be absolutelydepended upon, for Xenophon and Ctesias givedifferent accounts of the closing scene of hislife. He was succeeded by his eldest son,Cambyses, in B.C. 529. Darius Hystaspesascended the throne in 521, and Xerxes I. inB.C. 485.Meanwhile the first caravan of Jews had

returned to Jerusalem, led by Zerubbabel, andthe rebuilding of the Temple there was begunin B.C. 535, though retarded by the Samaritansand other adversaries. Haggai and Zechariahthe prophets urged the continuation of thework, and the Temple was dedicated in B.C.515. Artaxerxes I. in B.C. 458 commissionedEzra to proceed to Judaea to inquire intomatters in that country; and Nehemiah re-ceived his first commission as governor over


32/220

8 Light from Egyptian Papyrithe province in B.C. 444, and his second com-mission in B.C. 433, when the prophet Malachicommenced his ministry.

These dates should be borne in mind inconsidering the age and importance of theAramaic papyri lately discovered.Dr A. E. Cowley has given in his portion

of the work (pp. 14-23) an important sketchof the language of the Aramasan texts, as wellas of the chronology discovered in them, andthe names of money mentioned there.The great importance of these papyri, to-

gether with those more recently discovered,to be mentioned in our next chapter, consistsin the light which they have cast upon varioushistorical incidents connected with the booksof Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, and uponthe single verse of Jeremiah (ch. x. 11) in whichAramaic is employed. The Aramaic whichhas now been discovered is to all intents andpurposes the same as that which is extant inthe Biblical books just mentionedso thatthe arguments which have been used to


33/220

The Earlier Aramaic Papyri gdemonstrate the theory that Daniel could nothave written such Aramaic as exists in thebook that goes by his name have now beenabsolutely overthrown. Of course the samemay be said with regard to the Aramaicdocuments contained in the Book of Ezra andthe single verse in the Book of Jeremiah.

Professor Driver, in company with manyother of the ablest Semitic scholars, affirmedin his Introduction to the Old Testament(6th edit., pp. 503 ff.) that the Aramaiclanguage found in the Book of Daniel couldnot have been Aramaic used in Babylonin the days of the Israelitish captivity, andthat the resemblance of that dialect to theAramaic of Ezrawhich book is assigned bythe modern school of critics to B.C. 400doesnot prove the books of Daniel and Ezra tobe contemporary writings. When ProfessorDriver published his latest edition of hisIntroduction (the 6th, in 1897), he, with theevidence then before him, fairly affirmed that"at present we possess no independent


34/220

io Light from Egyptian Papyrievidence showing actually how long afterwardssuch a dialect continued in use. The dis-covery of fresh inscriptions may enable us inthe future to speak more positively."

Evidence, however, bearing distinctly onthis point has now come to light, andwe are in possession of two sets of papyrirunning from B.C. 471 to B.C. 411, which arequite sufficient to prove that the Aramaicspoken in B.C. 500 from Babylon in the northto Assuan in the south of Egypt was identicalwith what has been popularly styled theBiblical Aramaic. In Professor Driver'svery interesting letter to the Guardian ofNovember 6, 1907, due acknowledgment hasbeen made of these facts.


35/220

CHAPTER IITHE THREE ADDITIONAL ARAMAIC PAPYRINEWLY DISCOVERED

A more important discovery of Aramaicpapyri has lately been brought to light underthe editorship of Professor Dr Eduard Sachau,of the University of Berlin. These papyrihave been published in the Transactions of theRoyal Prussian Academy of Sciences, Berlin,1907. They have been also issued separatelywith the Aramaic text, accompanied by aGerman translation and short but importantnotes, under the title of " Drei aramiiischePapyrusurkunden aus Elephantine" (Berlin,1907, Verlag der konigl. Akademie der Wissen-schqften). The work contains a large plate ofthe original documents, with a short memor-andum of somewhat later date. These docu-


36/220

12 Light from Egyptian Papyriments have been already translated into Englishby Rev. Canon S. R. Driver, D.D., RegiusProfessor of Hebrew in the University ofOxford, with notes of his own, and published inthe Guardian newspaper of November 6, 1907.A more extensive article on "The NewPapyri of Elephantine" appeared in theExpositor of December 1907, from the penof Professor D. S. Margoliouth, D.Litt, ofOxford, which contains a fuller treatment ofseveral points, especially on Bagoas and San-ballat. This article has also a critical transla-tion, which will be found used in our notes. Itis followed by a short note by F. LI. Griffith,and by another article on " The JewishTemple of Yahu, God of the Heavens," byS. A. Cook, M.A., Camb. See Introduction.The three papyri in question were unearthed

in the chamber of a house excavated under amound which stands on the site of the ancientElephantine or Yeb. The first of these threecontains a petition from the Jewish colony inElephantine addressed to Bagohi, the Bagoas


37/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 13of Josephus (Antiq., xi. 7), then Persiangovernor of Judah. The petitioners asked forassistance to enable them to rebuild thetemple of the God Yahu (i.e. Jahu, orJehovah) in Elephantine, which had beenruthlessly destroyed at the instigation of theheathen priests of the ram-headed Egyptiangod Khnub, who possessed a temple of theirown in the fortress of Yeb or Elephantine. 1The Jewish temple erected to Jehovah on

that island in the Nile had been built aboutone hundred and twenty years before ; that is,prior to the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses,the son of Cyrus, in B.C. 525. AlthoughCambyses destroyed without compunction thetemples erected to the strange gods of Egypt,he spared this temple erected by the Jews of

1 Dr J. P. Mahaffy, of Trinity College, Dublin, in hisEmpire of the Ptolemies, p. 9, note 4, says :" There isevidence that this was now a penal settlement, probablyto utilise the labour of the prisoners in the granitequarries, for Alexander [the Great] sent there certainChian political prisoners from Memphis (Arrian, iii., 2. 7).I shall produce some evidence in the sequel that it wasnot yet a town or 7rdAis, though Arrian calls it so."


38/220

14 Light from Egyptian PapyriElephantine to Jehovah. The petition wassent to Bagohi, or Bagoas, about the year B.C.408, three years after the events complained ofhad taken place, or some twenty-four years laterthan Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem(Neh. xiii. 6). Arsam (or Arxames) was thengovernor ofEgypt. Duringatemporaryabsencefrom his government, in the reign of Darius II.(Darius Nothus), the priests of the god Khnub,for reasons not mentioned in the papyrus, bribedWaidrang 1 (who seems to have been a civiland military officer of authority) to demolishthe temple of Jehovah. That officer sum-moned to his aid his son Nephayan, who wasin command of the troops in Syene, on theopposite bank of the Nile. Under his com-mand a band of Egyptian soldiers landed onthe island, and at once proceeded to destroythe temple of Jehovah. They took possessionof all the gold and silver vessels belonging to

1 The name Waidrang is not Semitic, but it is found inan Aramaic papyrus fragment edited by Euting, as well asin the Assuan papyri edited by Sayce and Cowley.


39/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 15the temple, as well as other articles of value.

They broke down the walls of the temple,defaced its ornaments, levelled its fine stonepillars, and destroyed its seven large gates,which were also made of stone. The edificedescribed in the petition was not modelledafter the plan of an ordinary Jewish synagogue,but to some extent resembled the Temple atJerusalem; although, in place of the seven-branched golden candlestick, in the holy placethere was a candlestick suspended from theceiling. The building was not constructed tobe a simple place of prayer, or one speciallyadapted for the reading of the Holy Scripture.It contained an altar for burnt sacrifice, amplysupplied with silver and golden bowls, in whichthe blood of the animal sacrifices was collected,which was required for sprinkling the altar.The roof of the building was formed of cedar-wood, and that roof was completely destroyedby fire by the heathen soldiery.The petition does not state that the

Egyptian troops, in performing the work


40/220

1 6 Light from Egyptian Papyriassigned to them, were guilty of putting todeath any of the Jewish worshippers; orcommitted the other atrocities by which suchacts of violence were wont to be attended.The Jews were permitted without hindrancepublicly to lament and bemoan their losses.Men, wives, and children all put on sackcloth.

Their adversaries also were not permittedlong to remain unpunished. Waidrang (who,it seems, wore upon his feet a golden chainor anklet (?) significant of the office which wascommitted to him) was soon deprived of hisauthority and honour. All the goods whichhad been taken from the temple were destroyed,or perished in some way or other; and theadversaries of Israel were put to death. Thusthe Jews appear to have had their desires ac-complished upon their enemies. This changeof affairs may have been brought about by thereturn of Arsam. But the Jews do not appearto have received any compensation for theirlosses ; nor did they, as far as the papyriinform us, receive any official permission


41/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 17to rebuild the temple. Under such sad cir-cumstances the petition was drawn up and des-patched with a letter " to our lord Bagohi, andto Jehohanan the high priest at Jerusalem"(probably the Johanan of Neh. xii. 22) " andhis companions, the priests at Jerusalem, andto Ostan his brother who is 'Anani." 1The authorities at Jerusalem who are alluded

to did not hurry themselves in the matter.They seem to have turned a deaf ear atthat critical period to the petition of the Jewsin Elephantine. It may be possible that thepunishment inflicted upon Waidrang and hisconfederates was, however, a result of the letterof complaint forwarded to Jerusalem. Theremay have been also among the rulers inJerusalem some who were hostile to the Jewsof Elephantine on account of their violation ofthe Mosaic Law by erecting an altar for

1 Ostan is the Persian name, and 'Anani the Jewish, ofone and the same individual (see Driver). This is, however,disputed by Prof. Margoliouth, who maintains that thenatural rendering is ' Ostanes, brother of Anani. ' ' Noldekeagrees with Margoliouth. 2


42/220

1 8 Light from Egyptian Papyrisacrifice in another place than Jerusalem.Moreover, there may have been a mixture ofSamaritans among the Jews of Elephantine,and the desire not to befriend those sectariesmay have worked in the same direction.The destruction of the temple at Yeb

occurred some time in the month of Tammuz,after Arsam had gone to meet King Darius inthe fourteenth year of his reign over Persia,that is, in B.C. 411. In the thirtieth line of thefirst papyrus Arsam is distinctly stated tohave had no knowledge of the assault on theJewish colony. The document or petitionsent to " Bagohi and his fellows " was des-patched on the twentieth day of Marcheswan(November), the seventeenth year of Darius,

yU i.e. B.C. 414. About the same time otherletters were despatched to Delaiah andShelemiah, sons of Sanballat, who seems tohave been at the time governor in Samaria.

Sanballat is frequently mentioned in theBook of Nehemiah as "the Horonite," andat least once as a Samaritan (Neh. iv. 1, 2).


43/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 19He is spoken of in that book as a confederatewith Tobiah, "the servant, the Ammonite,"in being among those who were grieved thatthere was come a man (namely, Nehemiah) toseek the welfare of the children of Israel(Neh. ii. 10, vi. 1-14, xiii. 28). The last ofthose passages speaks of Sanballat as closelyconnected by marriage with the family of theJewish high priest at Jerusalem. That factmay possibly explain in some degree the un-willingness at first exhibited by the authoritiesat Jerusalem to take into consideration thesufferings of the Jews at Elephantine, as wellas account a little later for the help actuallyafforded to those same petitioners. For theJewish colony at Elephantine appears to havebeen of a mixed character; and Josephus{Antiq., xi. 8, 9) states that Alexander the Greatbrought down at a later period to Egypt withhim some of the Samaritans, who, however,on being interrogated concerning their origin,affirmed (as they were often wont to do) thatthey belonged to the nation of the Jews,


44/220

20 Light from Egyptian PapyriThe second set of Aramaic papyri discovered

at Elephantine consists of three documents, ofwhich the first, which contains the petition, isthe longest and the most complete. Thesecond is somewhat shorter, goes over the sameground, and is characterised by more frequentgaps, the lines in many cases being imperfectat the sides. It consists of an account givenby Jedonijah of the same transaction, and, toa large extent, uses the same words. Thisaccount in some places helps to a better under-standing of the first. The third documentconsists of a subsidiary fragment, which givesthe closing up of the history.The first document runs as follows :

I.

1. To our Lord Bagohi,1 governor 2 ofJudah :1 Bagohi. Sachau, in explanation of this name, refers to

Noldeke, Persische Studien, i., p. 412. Much informationon the subject is given by Margoliouth in his article.

2 Babylonian and Persian: see Ezra v. 14>; Daniel iii.23, 27, vi. 1.


45/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 21Thy servants Jedonijah 1 and his com-

panions 2 the priests who are in Yeb 3 [Ele-phantine], in the fortress,4 Peace.

2. May our Lord, the God of heaven,6grant [?] to thee [peace] abundantly at everytime, and may you receive favour beforeDarius the king.6

3. And may the sons of the [royal] Housebe a thousand times more than they are now,1 Jedonijah. The proper name Jadon, ruler, occurs in

Neh. iii. 7. The Hebrew verb is found in Gen. vi. 3.The Aramaic is found in other papyri ; see Sachau, p. 18.2 Companions. See Dan. ii. IS, 17, 18. Frequent in Ezra.3 Clermont-Ganneau (Recueil d'archeologie orient., t. vi.,

pp. 222, 234) has identified Yeb with Elephantine. Theword was first found in the fragment of a papyrus foundin the same place, and dated at the same time, by JuliusEuting in 1903.

4 Fortress or castle. This word has been incorrectlytranslated palace in Neh. i. 1 ; Esther i. 7. The Assyrianword is birtu. It is used in combination with Shuskan in theHebrew of Dan. viii. 2. See on this Daniel and its Critics.

5 A common title in post-exilic days. See Dan. ii. 1 8,19, 34, 44 ; Neh. i. 4, 5 ; so also in Gen. xxiv. 7. SeeDriver's Introd., 6th edit., p. 553. Often used in Ezra inroyal edicts or letters to kings.

6 This, as has been proved by Euting, was King Darius II.Nothus, who reigned b.c. 424-405.


46/220

22 Light from Egyptian Papyriand may He give them long life. Maystthou be happy and in good health at all times.

4. Now thy servants, Jedonijah and hiscompanions, speak thus :In the month ofTammuz [July] in the fourteenth year ofDarius the king, when Arsam 15de-parted and went to the king, the priests 2of the god Khnub which were in Yebthe fortress [made] a conspiracy in consort 3with Waidrang, who was fratera-ka [?] 4[governor] here.6. Saying, "Let the temple 5 which be-1 Or Arsames, probably identical with the governor of

Egypt named Arxanes by Ctesias.2 Kemarim. In A.V. chemarims (Zeph. i. 4) ; idolatrous

priests, 2 Kings xxiii. 5 ; priests, Hos. x. 5. Always used ofidolatrous priests in opposition to the Levitical. In thepapyri the word kohen is used exclusively of Jewish priests.

3 "In consort. See Lzb., p. 213. Old Persian, akinto a/>ta. A peculiar word only known besides from thepassage inEuting's papyrus."Driver. The verb "made "is missing. See on the form Sachau, p. 22.

4 So Lidzbarski, which Sachau prefers, p. 22. The OldPersian is cognate with 7rpoTpo


47/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 23longs to the God Yahu,1 the God which isin Yeb the fortress, be taken away fromthence." Then this Waidrang7[ . .doubtful] sent letters to his son Nephayan,who was commander of the force which wasin Syene,2 in the fortress, saying, "Thetemple which is in Yeb8the fortress shallbe destroyed." 3 Whereupon Nephayan ledout the Egyptians with the other forces ;they came to the fortress of Yeb with their1 Yahu. This form for Jehovah is found in some Hebrew

compound proper names, as Jehubel, Jer. xxxvii. 3. TheJews in Elephantine used this form, which is frequent inthe Old Testament in the end of proper names, as in Isaiah,Jeremiah, although the shortened form is more common.

2 "Syene. Aram. Swn, i.e. no doubt Swen, Egypt. Swn,Greek %vrjvq, Arab. Aswan. Mentioned in Ezek. xxix. 10,xxx. 6 (R.V. Seveeneh) as a place in the south frontier ofEgypt (in both passages render as R.V. marg. 'from Migdol[on the north-east border of the Delta] to Syene.' Thegarrison in Syene is mentioned also in a papyrus of 458b.c. (Lzb., ii. 221). Nine years before, in 420, Waidranghimself was commander of it (Ass. Pap. J. 2, 4)."Driver.

3 On the form nyn^ comp. jtlH^ Dan. vii. 26. Forms ofthe impf. 3rd pers. plur. masc. are found both with -1 andR See Sachau, p. 25. So Dan. v. 10, &TI3' and UnB>\KH3 has not yet been found elsewhere. On its derivation,see Sachau, p. 27.


48/220

24 Light from Egyptian Papyriquivers, 19they went into this temple,they destroyed it to the ground, and thedoors which were there of stone they broke.10Also the seven stone doors built ofhewn blocks of stone which were in thistemple they destroyed, and their doors 2 theyburned 3 and their hinges11which werein marble sockets [and] of bronze ; andthe ceiling which was wholly of cedar,together with the stucco [?] of the wall [?] 4and the other things that were there12all these they burned with fire ; and

1 DrP7n here might be explained from the


49/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 25the bowls of gold and of silver and whateverelse 1 was in this templeall this theytook13[and] appropriated unto them-selves; and from the days of the king[kings] of Egypt our fathers built thistemple in Yeb in the fortress, and whenCambyses [b.c. 529-522] went up to Egypt14he found this temple built ; but thetemples of Egypt were then all pulled down,and no one injured anything in this temple.15And since they have done this wewith wives and children have put on sack-cloth, and fasted and prayed to Yahu, theLord ofthe heavens,16who [afterwards?]gave us knowledge of this Waidrang.2They have taken away the chain [of office]from his feet, and all the riches which he1 DJTT3D, plural KTWUD. The singular is well known

as occurring in Egypt. Aram, documents. The plural isfound here and in Euting, c. 13. See Sachau, p. 29.

2 fcOX>3 may be rendered by dogs, and might be takenas the subject of the following sentence to imply thathe was eaten by dogs. Comp. 1 Kings xxi. 23. SeeMargoliouth. Noldeke renders, " the dogs tear the chainsfrom his feet."


50/220

26 Light from Egyptian Papyripossessed they destroyed, and all the men17and every man who prayed for evilagainst this temple are slain,1 and we haveseen our desire upon them.Also before this,2 when this evil18

was done to us, we sent a letter to ourlord, and to Jochanan the high priest andhis fellows the priests who were in Jerusalem,and to Ostan his brother,19who is'Anani,8 and the nobles of the Jews, but noletter did they send to us.Also since the Tammuz-day of thefourteenth year of King Darius20to thisday have we put on sackcloth and fasted,our wives are become like widows, we havenot anointed ourselves with oil 421ordrunk wine from that day 5 to this day of

i ifrtSpj were slain, a passive form like yi, was revealed,Dan. ii. 19; ^^P, ere plucked off, Dan. vii. 4; ITnB piDDI,and books were opened, Dan. vii. 10. Also Vto\ Dan. iii. 21.Some similar forms occur in the Palmyrene tariff.2 rut nDip. Comp. Dan. vi. ii, nn nonp-p.

3 See note on p. 17. 4 Compare Amos vi. 6.5 See Sachau, p. 34. Margoliouth thinks that "from

then unto his day" implies that this document is only


51/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 27the seventeenth year of King Darius [b.c.408] nor have meal-offerings, frankincense,or burnt-offerings 22 been offered inthis temple. Now, therefore, thy servants,Yedoniah and his companions, and the Jews,all the citizens of 1 Yeb say thus :23If itseem good to our lord, think 2 upon thistemple that it may be built again, becausewe are not permitted 3 to rebuild it again :look upon the recipients of24thy good-ness and of thy mercy towards who are herein Egypt. May a letter be sent from theeto them concerning the temple of the GodYahu25that it may be rebuilt in thefortress Yeb, as it was built in former times.And they [the duplicate reads : " and we "]meal-offerings, and frankincense, and burnt-

a rough draft in which details were afterwards to befilled up.

1 The same expression occurs in Ezra v. 17.2 nwm. Compare HW, Dan. vi. 4, Heb. W&Targ. JIBWIK, and Knsm, Sayce-Cowley, C. 5, D. 5 ; also

Sachau, p. 34 ; also compare the Aramaism in Jonah i. 6.3 Compare Ezra vi. 7; Dan. iv. 12, 20, 23. Ithpe. Dan.

ii. 44.


52/220

28 Light from Egyptian Papyriofferings26will offer 1 upon the altar[ntun] of the God Yahu in thy name, andwe will pray for thee at all times, we andour wives, and our children, and the Jews27altogether who are here, if this bedone,2 and this temple is rebuilt; and aportion 3 shall come to thee before Yahu theGod28of heaven from everyone who1 In the word NnXID in this line, and in jrQTl in line

26, the 1 takes the place of T, after the more modernusage. See Sachau, p. 35.2 The duplicate reads *W ^T. But the frequent use of**1 "W in Dan. ii. 9, 34, etc., shows the reading of No. 1is the more correct.

3 np"l^ lit. and righteousness. But the combination ofnplVI p?n in Neh. ii. 20 justifies the translation above.Righteousness means here, as Driver notes, a portion legallyfixed. Both Sachau and Driver note the curious counter-part in the impost which Bagoas afterwards exacted onthe sacrifices in the Temple at Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiq.,bk. vi., viii.) for the murder of Joshua, the brother ofJehohanan the high priest. Joshua was a friend ofBagoas, and was slain by his brother Johanan in theTemple. Bagoas laid the blame on the Jews, upon whomhe laid a fine for seven years of 50 drachmae for everylamb offered in the daily sacrifices, but he left at the sametime Johanan in possession of the high priesthood. Seealso Margoliouth's article, pp. 487 ff.


53/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 29offers to Him burnt-offering and sacrificein value equivalent to a thousand talents ofsilver. 1 And concerning the gold, concern-ingthat29we have sent and made known.We have also all sent [about] the matters ina letter in our name to Delaiah and Shela-miah, the sons of Sanballat, the governor[Pechah] of Samaria.30Arsam also hasno knowledge of all this that has been doneto us.The twentieth of Marchesvan [November]in the seventeenth year of King Darius.

II.We have not (as it is unnecessary forour special purpose) pointed out all themistakes in writing which occur in this firstdocument. They have been duly noticed bySachau, Driver, Margoliouth, and others.The second document, which is shorter and

more defective, was written at the same time1 A talent of silver must have fallen greatly in value to

justify such a promise. But see Noldeke, p. 201.


54/220

30 Light from Egyptian Papyriby Jedoniah to some person whose name isnot mentioned. It need not here be given atlength. It is only necessary to call attentionto some of its different readings. It was in-tended evidently to be merely a shorter tran-script of the former.The principal parts of it are as follows :" In the fourteenth year of King Darius,

when Arsam had gone away and gone to theking . . . the fortress, they gave gold andtreasure to Waidrang the governor who washere. . . . Whereupon that Waidrang sentletters to his son Nephayan . . . that theyshould destroy [the temple] of the God Yahuin the fortress Yob. Thereupon Nephayanled the Egyptians with their mmi, theypressed into the temple and destroyed it to theground. And the stone pillars . . . sevengreat doors of hewn stones which were in thattemple . . . each of brass, and the ceiling ofthat temple consisting entirely of cedar beamswith . . . have they burned with fire. Andthe sacrificial bowls of gold and silver, and


55/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 31the things have they taken for themselves.And already in the days of the kings of Egypthave our fathers built that temple in the for-tress of Yeb . . . that temple he [Cambyses]found built before. But the temples ofthe gods of Egypt all . . . On the contraryno one anything against . . . was done.We together with our wives and childrenfasted . . . of knowledge given to us of thatWaidrang n^o. 1 They have taken his feet-chains from his feet, and all . . . who haswished evil to that temple, all are slain, andwe have seen it to our satisfaction. Also . . .what has happened to us, we have sent a letterabout it to our lord and also to Jehohanan. . . and to Ostan his brother, i.e. 'Anani,and the freemen of the Jews. 2 A letter . . .in the fourteenth year of King Darius, and upto this day have we worn mourning clothes... we have anointed ourselves no more withoil, nor drunken wine. Also since that day and

1 See note 2, p. 25.2 See note on p. 17.


56/220

32 Light from Egyptian Papyrito . . . meal-offering and frankincense-offer-ing and burnt-offering have they not made inthat temple. No more . . . and the Jews,all citizens of Yeb also speak :If it hadpleased our lord thou wouldst have thought. . . to us it is not allowed to rebuild. Turnthee to the recipients of thy goodness andgrace which here ... in respect of thetemple of the God Yahu to rebuild it again inthe fortress Yeb even as . . . and we willbring burnt-offering upon the altar of the GodJahu in thy name, and we will pray . . . andthe Jews together which are here, and if thoualso doest, until that temple be built again . . .God of heaven, from everyone who offers aburnt-offering, and a meat-offering, the valueof a silver shekel for a thousand iddd (?) l. . . .For news have we sent a letter in our name

1 MrF. LI. Griffiths observes: "With regard to 13:3,in which Professor Margoliouth has recognised the nameof the talent, it is well known in Coptic as kingor;while in demotic of the Ptolemaic age it is written krlcr,and is equivalent to 1500 staters, tetradrachms." SeeExpositor, Dec. 1907, p. 4*95.


57/220

Additional Aramaic Papyri 33to Delayah and Shelemyah, the sons of . . .of all which has been done to us has Arsamno knowledge." On twenty Marcheswan in year10 + 3+ . . ."

III.There is yet a third document, namely, the

following memorandum :" This record of what Bagohi and Delaiah

have said to me. Record :Let it be to theein Egypt to say before Arsam concerning thehouse of sacrifice which belongs to the Godof heaven which was built in Yeb the fortress,it was from before Cambyses, which Waidrang,that cursed one,

1

destroyed in the fourteenthyear of Darius the king, to build it again inits place as it was formerly, and that theyshould offer meal-offerings and frankincenseupon that altar as it was accustomed to bedone before."

1 Probably Noldeke is correct in thus translating.D. H. Miiller translates actively the destroyer. 3


58/220

34 Light from Egyptian PapyriSachau observes that in Ezra vi. 2 nrnrrr, a

record, is used exactly as prOt here.In the last word of the second line mch iswritten with the omission of w, idndS as inEzra v. 11.The phrase Nnrna to, house of sacrifice, is

used in place of nton, temple, which is used inthe other documents.Arsam had evidently returned to his office

as governor of Egypt before this record wassent.

Sachau mentions several mistakes in thewriting of the document, which it is notnecessary to mention here.The expression " in its place " indicated that

the temple was to be erected on the same spotwhich it had formerly occupied. CompareEzra v. 15, vi. 7.


59/220

CHAPTER HITHE THREE TEMPLES IN WHICH SACRIFICESWERE OFFERED CONTRARY TO THE LAW

OF DEUTERONOMY CH. XII.The discovery of these Assuan papyri hasadded another temple, and that of a very earlydate, to the number of Jewish temples inwhich sacrifices were for a long period offeredup to Jehovah, notwithstanding that the law,distinctly laid down in Deut. xii. 2-14, pro-hibited the offering up of any sacrifice except" in the place which Jehovah shall choosein one of thy tribes, where thou shalt offerthy burnt offerings" (u 14 and vv. 5-7).Jerusalem was afterwards selected as thatplace. But the temples in which, in the courseof time, such unlawful sacrifices were offeredwere, first, that in Yeb or Elephantine, as set

35


60/220

36 Light from Egyptian Papyriforth plainly in the newly discovered Aramaicpapyri noticed in our preceding chapters, whichwas built in the closing period of Cyrus's reign.See pp. 25, 81.The exact date of the building of the Sam-

aritan temple on Mount Gerizzim is a matterof great uncertainty. According to Josephus(Antiq., xi., viii. 4), it was erected by Sanballat,the enemy of Nehemiah, for his son-in-lawManasseh, who was brother-in-law to Jaddua,the Jewish high priest in the days of Alexanderthe Great. Sanballat, however, lived nearly acentury earlier ; and although it is possible thatthe first statement may be founded on fact, thesecond cannot have been true. Although thesite has been minutely examined by means ofthe work of the Palestine Exploration Society,very little can be affirmed except that thetemple, at whatever time it was erected, pos-sessed an altar for sacrifice. The temple isnot alluded to in the New Testament, althoughworship on the mountain by the Samaritans isspoken of in John iv. 20. A temple, how-


61/220

The three Temples of Sacrifice 37ever, is mentioned as having been closed up byHyrcanus in B.C. 129, and that temple mayhave been in ruins in the days of our Lord,although worship and sacrifice, as in later days,may have been made on the site of its ruins.The Onias temple erected in Egypt about

B.C. 154 was of much more importance. Inthe outset, attention may be called to the factthat the only " priests " who officiated in theseveral temples, the only persons who couldproperly claim to belong to the regular Levi-tical " succession," were those who sacrificed inthe temple at Leontopolis. How long, how-ever, the latter continued to possess that " suc-cession " is a matter at present unknown. Itis, however, a matter of some importance toobserve in general that, if we may use in thiscase the ecclesiastical language of the largerportions of the professing Christian Church,the Jewish congregations in Egypt (whetherJewish or Samaritan) must be distinctlyaffirmed to have been of a schismatical type.

It is clear from the facts now disclosed by


62/220

38 Light from Egyptian Papyrithe Assuan Aramaic papyri that the templeerected in Elephantine was a temple forsacrifice and not a mere synagogue. From aLevitical standpoint that temple was notedfor certain special peculiarities of its own. Notonly did the seven-branched candlestick dis-appear and a hanging lamp take its place, butthe temple does not seem to have had a tableof shewbread, or a special altar for the offeringup of incense, ora " holy of holies." Its wallsseem also to have been ornamented in a differentway from that which was practised in theancient temple at Jerusalem. The priests whoofficiated at its altar do not appear, after a littletime, to have been chosen in strict accordancewith Levitical precedents. The papyri alsomake no mention of a library which con-tained the Holy Scriptures, and the lamenta-tions manifested by the Jewish citizens at itsdestruction bewailed more deeply the materialstones and ornaments of the building than theprobable loss of the holy writings of Israel.The Onias temple at Leontopolis was erected


63/220

The three Temples of Sacrifice 39between the years B.C. 167 and 157. A fairlyconsistent account of its erection is given byJosephus (Antiq., xiii., cxx. 3 ; Wars, vii., x. 2).Josephus is the sole authority on the subject.The first Book of Maccabees, in which onemight reasonably have expected an account ofthe remarkable religious secession which tookplace under the leadership of Onias, does noteven allude to that remarkable episode inJewish history, while that religious secession

happened after the period treated of in SecondMaccabees.In his earlier work on the History of the

Jewish Wars (book i. 1) Josephus records thestruggle between " the sons of Tobias " andthe high priest Onias IV. during the earlypart of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.In that struggle Onias was at first successful,and for a time expelled those evil men fromJerusalem. They, however, fled to Antiochus,and received help from that monarch, whomarched an army against Jerusalem and tookpossession of the city. Onias fled from Jeru-


64/220

40 Light from Egyptian Papyrisalem, with a number of priests and Levites,to Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, andoffered to aid that monarch in his enterprisesagainst Antiochus. The offer was acceptedby Ptolemy, and Onias was created a generalof the Egyptians. As a military leader Oniasseems to have performed considerable services.For such services a large gift of land wasgranted to him, and permission accorded tocreate a second Jerusalem with a templesimilar in its arrangements and external ap-pearance to the old Jerusalem in Judaea.

In Professor Flinders Petrie's importantwork on Hyksos and Israelite Citiespublishedat the office ofthe British School of Archaeologyin Egypt, University College, Gower Street,W.C., and Quaritch, 11 Piccadilly, W., 1906an important article is given on the temple ofOnias. Professor Flinders Petrie, by carefulexamination and excavation, has proved thatthe locality of this temple was, as formerlyrecognised, near the Tell el Yehudiyeh inLeontopolis, in the nome of Heliopolis. A


65/220

The three Temples of Sacrifice 41large portion of the district around was calledthe Oneion, after Onias (Josephus, Antiq., xiv.,viii. 2). The main object of Onias was tomake the locality resemble Jerusalem. Inthe neighbourhood of the temple were theruins of an old temple which had stood inthe ancient camp of the Hyksos, and theimmense stone wall of that camp formed amost important quarry whence building ma-terial was obtained. " The plan of the wholehill is strikingly modelled on that of Jeru-salem ; the temple had inner and outer courts,like that of Zion, but it was smaller andpoorer in size; and while the hill of Jeru-salem was natural, and the temple there wasbuilt on the top of the rock, here the artificialhill had to be revetted with a great stone wall,which made the temple like a tower 60 cubitshigh, as seen in the model, plate xxiv. Thereis not any point of difficulty or discrepancyleft in the account of Josephus, so soon as wefind the true site" (Flinders Petrie, p. 31).The date of occupation, says Petrie, is given


66/220

42 Light from Egyptian Papyriby the coins found at the top, which were allcopper coins of Ptolemy Soter II., beginningB.C. 117. The date of Onias was somewhatearlier, b.c. 154. The mound is unique inEgypt, for Egyptian builders followed adifferent construction. Of the temple whichwas built on its top, several portions of thebasements of the walls still remain. Therewere two open courts, and at the end of thesea mass of brick foundation which measures201 inches wide and 658 inches long. This isnearly the proportion of Solomon's temple, 20by 70 cubits. No trace exists of the divisionsof the temple into porch, holy place, and themost holy.

In justification of his attempt to build atemple with an altar for sacrifice, Onias, asmentioned several times by Josephus (Antiq.,xiii., lii. 1) appealed to the prophecy ofIsaiah xix. 16-23 as a solid justification.The "pillar," however, mentioned by Isaiahwas only a sign or pillar of remembrance, andnot one which marked a spot on which "a


67/220

The three Temples of Sacrifice 43high place" was erected. The "altar" namedin that passage was only an altar of

"witness,"

like that of Ed spoken of in Josh. xxii. 9-34.The reference in Isaiah to Josh. xxii. canscarcely be mistaken. " Altar " and " pillar "in Isaiah's prophetic picture were " signs " thatEgypt would in later days become a centre ofpure worship. By the "pillar at the borderthereof" Egypt was ecclesiastically annexedto Canaan, just as the territories across theJordan were united by the children of Reubenand the children of Gad, and the half tribeof Manasseh were united by the altar of Ed.The prediction of five cities speaking thelanguage of Canaan (comp. Zech. iii. 9) wasan illustration of that spiritual annexation, andmust not to be regarded as a literal prediction.1We have already called attention to thefact {Daniel and his Prophecies, p. 263) thatJerome strangely maintained that the over-

1 The LXX., like Josephus, refer the prophecy to theOnias temple, and accordingly altered the phrase in v. 18from "city of destruction " into "city of righteousness."


68/220

44 Light from Egyptian Papyrithrow of the Onias temple, which took placea few years later than the destruction of theTemple of Jerusalem by Titus, had been pre-dicted by Daniel in ch. xi. 13, 14. Theprophecy, however, of Daniel could not havereferred to the Onias temple, because it occursin a context in which the prophet Danielspeaks of the events connected with the warsbetween Antiochus the Great and Ptolemy,which occurred some forty years earlier. Infact, there is no reference whatever made inthat prophecy of Daniel to the Onias temple,or to its later destruction.The history of the Onias temple was by

no means peaceful. There are still traces ofits having undergone several sieges. Its highpriest had to give proof of his ability as ageneral, and part of the eastern portion of thetemple suffered much from sieges. ProfessorFlinders Petrie found many of the missilesdischarged from ballistse still lying amongits ruins. The appearance of the Egyptiantemple and city had, however, been made to

/


69/220

The three Temples of Sacrifice 45resemble many of the features of the Pales-tinian city. The temple was finally closedby Lupus, the Roman prefect of Egypt, ina.d. 71. His successor Paulinus stripped thetemple completely, shut up its gates, andrendered it inaccessible.

It is curious that the Onias temple pre-served in its high priesthood (though how longcannot be safely asserted) the correct suc-cession of the Levitical priesthood, which wasutterly lost by the Palestinian Jews throughoutthe Maccabean period. The illegal attemptmade in Palestine by the Jews to establish aJewish kingdom with a ruler who should beboth priest and king led to the destructionin Palestine in a short time of true royalty,which appertained to the House of David,and to the utter ruin of any lawful Leviticalhigh priesthood.


70/220

CHAPTER IVEVENTS WHICH OCCURRED IN THE EARLYMACCABEAN PERIOD, NOT ALLUDED TO

IN THE BOOK OF DANIELIt has long been assumed as an axiom of themodern criticism that the Book of Daniel waswritten in the age of the great Maccabeanrevolt against the tyranny of AntiochusEpiphanes. Following in the steps of thepagan commentator Porphyry, the Book ofDaniel has been regarded as an attempt tofan the flames of insurrection among thepatriotic Jews of that period, and to inspirethem with a holy resolve to oppose the attemptof that king to destroy their nationality, andblot out their religion from under heaven. Itwas important to make them believe thatthe prophet Daniel in Babylon had predicted

46


71/220

Events passed over in Daniel 47ages before the attempts of the heathen andtheir discomfiture. For if that prophet hadbeen led to sketch the manner in which theunholy plan was to be taken in hand, theJews might be aroused to go forth with thecertainty of obtaining ultimately the victoryin the holy war which had been set on footfor "faith and fatherland."But in order to establish this theory, so skil-

fully concocted by Porphyry, and designed toput

an end to the appeals made constantly in hisday by Christian controversialists to the Bookof Daniel, it was necessary to show that theBook of Daniel bore plainly and distinctly onits front proofs that it was written after theevents had taken place which are described aspredicted in its pages.

Porphyry had a strong argument to adducein support of his theory, derived from thechronicle of Dan. xi. 1-30. He could wellafford to pass over the discrepancy whichexists in Dan. xi. 2 as to the number ofthe Persian monarchs. As the four mon-


72/220

48 Light from Egyptian Papyriarchies spoken of in Dan. ii. and vii. asexisting to

"the time of the end

"give a pro-

phetic picture of the world-powers that playeda part in the history of Israel, it mightwell be argued that only those Persianmonarchs who concerned themselves in theaffairs of " the holy people " are mentioned inthe prophecy, which from first to last isconcerned only with the fortunes of Israel.But leaving that matter out of sight, andsome minor difficulties connected therewith,Porphyry might well, from his standpoint,argue from the incidents recorded in ch. xi.1-30 that that prophecy had strong marksof being a pretended prophecy written afterthe events related in it had actually takenplace.1The theory of Porphyry was, however,

completely demolished by the fact that thedeath of Antiochus Epiphanes is not mentioned

1 See the detailed exposition in Daniel and his Prophecies,pp. 242-292, and the critical notes in Daniel and its Critics,pp. 174-198.


73/220

Events passed over in Daniel 49at all in the "prophecy" or " chronicle,"whatever it may be termed. The attempt tomaintain that the closing verses of the eleventhchapter (vv. 40-43) describe a campaign ofAntiochus Epiphanes against Egypt, under-taken at the close of his career, is utterlyopposed to the historians who have written onthe close of that monarch's reign, and thesubsequent events of the Maccabee struggle.Regarded strictly from a literal standpoint, theevents recorded in ch. xi. 40 to the end ofch. xii. never took place ; and the moderncritics are perfectly correct in that particular.The idea upheld by the Futurist school thatDaniel xi. from about v. 31 onwards depictsevents still future, and describes a personalAntichrist of the future days, is, we consider,a delusion and a snare.But it is passing strange how little infor-

mation concerning the Maccabean insurrec-tion and the grievances of the Jewish peoplecan be discovered from the Book of Daniel.So far from the events " prophesied " or " re-4


74/220

5


75/220

Events passed over in Daniel 51tended together, often in a state of nudity, inthe palaestra and in the game of the discus.That game the Jewish historian regarded as nolight matter, but as a gross impiety againstthe God of Israel, and as the "advance of analien religion." It was a terrible profanity,especially as it was favoured and supportedby Jason, high priest of the Jews. See 2 Mace,iv. 9, 10, 12-16 ; Josephus, Antiq., xii., v. 1.

2. There is no special mention in Danielof the Sabbath having been turned into areproach, or of the Jewish feasts being turnedinto mourning. See 1 Mace. ' i. 30 ; 2 Mace,xv. 2-5.

3. Nor is there any reference made to theabolition of the rite of circumcision, although,if anything could have driven the Jews tomadness, it would have been the acts recordedin the two Books of the Maccabees, of womenbeing put to death for circumcising theirchildren, and of circumcised babes havingbeen hung in derision round their mothers'necks, their houses being at the same time


76/220

52 Light from Egyptian Papyridestroyed, as well as all those persons who haddared to transgress the king's commandmentby performing the act of circumcision. See1 Mace. i. CO ; and 2 Mace. x. 2-4.

4. There is no mention in the Book ofDaniel of the Jews having been compelled toeat meats prohibited by the Law of Moses,meats offered to idols, and especially swine'sflesh. But this was insisted on, as recordedin 1 Mace. i. 62, 63 ; 2 Mace. vi. 18-21, vii.The martyrdom of the seven brethren for

refusing to eat swine's flesh, which is recordedin 2 Mace, vi., may be left out of this list,because it may have taken place at a later era,or, as Gratz has maintained, may have occurredoutside the limits of the Holy Land.

5. One profanation of the sanctuary isbriefly mentioned in Dan. xi. 31. But in thatchapter there is no reference whatever madeto the cleansing of the sanctuary. The cleans-ing of the sanctuary spoken of in Dan. viii.cannot be identified with the "little help"referred to in Dan. xi. 30.


77/220

Events passed over in Daniel 536. We read nowhere in Daniel of the more

awful profanation of the sanctuary recorded in2 Mace. vi. 4, 5, when " the temple was filledwith riot and revellings by the heathen, whodallied with harlots, and had to do with womenwithin the sacred precincts, and moreoverbrought inside things that were not befitting ;and the place of sacrifice was filled with theseabominable things, which had been prohibitedby the laws." That profanation of the Templeseems to have taken place in B.C. 168, althoughthe historical writers seem to have considerablymixed up the accounts of these two profana-tions with one another.

7. The Book of Daniel, in ch. xi. 28, givesmerely a superficial glance at the first pro-fanation. That event was specially remark-able for the entrance of Antiochus Epiphanesinto the holy place (1 Mace. i. 21-24 ; 2 Mace,v. 15-18). But of that daring act no accountis given in either Dan. viii. or Dan. xi. SeeDaniel and his Prophecies, p. 292.

8. There is no allusion made in Daniel to


78/220

54 Light from Egyptian Papyriany " cleansing of the sanctuary " in Maccabeandays. The cleansing of the sanctuary spokenof in Dan. viii. 13, 14 is not that which tookplace in the Maccabean time, but a cleansingwhich is spoken of as taking place at the closeof the evening morning two thousand andthree hundred (Dan. viii. 14, 26). See Danieland his Prophecies, pp. 324, 325.

9. The second horrible profanation of theTemple (possibly referred to in 2 Mace. vi. 4-5,mentioned above under No. 6) is but slightlynoticed in Dan. xi. 31 ; Josephus (Antiq.,xii., v. 4). It is described along with the set-ting up of that idolatry by which the altarof Jehovah was desecrated in 1 Mace. i. 54-62and in 2 Mace. vi. 6 ff.

10. The Book of Daniel nowhere makesmention of the profanity of consecrating theTemple at Jerusalem to a heathen god, andcalling it by the name of Jupiter Olympius,and of reconsecrating the temple on MountGerizzim (although the latter took place atthe request of the Samaritans themselves) to


79/220

Events passed over in Daniel 55Jupiter the Protector of Strangers (2 Mace,vi. 2 ; Josephus, Antiq., xii., v. 5).

11. Nor is there any notice taken in Danielof the institution of the pagan festival ofBacchus which is recorded in 2 Mace. vi. 7.

12. The purification of the Temple and ofthe altar, including the peculiar care taken toremove the stones that had been defiled,although noted with considerable length in1 Mace. iv. 42-51, in 2 Mace. x. 1-8, and inJosephus, Antiq. xii., vii. 6, 7,

is passed overin silence in the Book of Daniel.13. The wholesale destruction of the holy

books of the Law and Prophets dwelt uponin 1 Mace. i. 56, 57 is not alluded to inthe Book of Daniel, although the work of theteachers who gave instruction to the people,and its great importance, are alluded to inDan. xi. 32-35.

14. The flight of the high priest (Onias IV.)into Egypt and the building of the schismatictemple in Leontopolis, though, as noticedbefore (p. 39), it was not an unimportant


80/220

56 Light from Egyptian Papyriepisode in the history of Israel, is nowherereferred to in the Book of Daniel.The list here given is by no means complete.

Other items could be easily added. Theonly passages which seem to show anythinglike a close connection with the Danielic"chronicle" are those relating to "the abomina-tion of desolation " and the taking away of thedaily sacrifice. And even Nestle, one of themost remarkable representatives of the newschool of criticism, has done his best to removeeven that assumed piece of evidence. SeeDaniel and his Prophecies, pp. 293, 294.

It is marvellous that the early Fathers whosought to grapple with the sophisms ofPorphyry did not notice these matters. Infact, the whole prophecy of ch. xi., from the31st verse to the end of ch. xii., is characterisedby that vagueness and indefmiteness as toparticular facts and their exact order of occur-rence, which is one of the most noteworthypoints which distinguish real and inspiredprophecy. Except as noted in detail in our


81/220

Events passed over in Daniel 57volume already referred to, even Dan. xi.exhibits none of the features possessed by aminute historical chronicle.The Book of Daniel does not exhibit marks

of having been written in Maccabean times,save as regards a small portion of ch. xi. Itis perfectly marvellous how Dr Pusey couldventure to assert:"In the eighth chapterwhen Daniel did portray Antiochus every traitcorresponds ; we are at a loss for nothing ; nota word is without meaning. . . . The end ofAntiochus was briefly and strikingly character-ised in the eighth chapter, a sudden yet violentdeath amid a life of war and plunder " (Pusey'sDaniel, p. 97).

This latter statement, as we have noticedbefore, is peculiarly unfortunate. The onlyparallel to the expression "without hand"(Dan. viii. 25) is the Aramaic phraseused of the stone cut out of the mountain" without hands " (Dan. ii. 34). But nonecessarily sudden event is depicted in ch. ii.24. In both passages the phrases made use


82/220

58 Light from Egyptian Papyriof denote events brought about by Divine andnot by human agency. The eighth chapter ofDaniel does not depict any sudden death ofAntiochus Epiphanes.The modern critic is in some respects easily

satisfied, but a thorough examination of hisargument shows how essentially weak is theposition which he has taken up. AntiochusEpiphanes was not the greatest enemy ofthe people of Israel. It may be questionedwhether Nebuchadnezzar was not a moreinsatiable tyrant. The struggle of theMaccabean era, too, did not close withAntiochus Epiphanes. It lasted through thereign of Antiochus Eupator, and through no in-considerable portion of the reign of Demetrius.At the time of the death of Epiphanes theJews were in the most favourable situation.But the military skill exhibited by Lysias,the general of Eupator, and after him byBacchides, soon put matters into a differentposition. The chain of forts he, and after himBacchides, built from north to south of the land


83/220

Events passed over in Daniel 59of Palestine rendered it possible to preventserious attacks from the guerrilla mode of war-fare adopted by the Jews. Judas Maccabeuswas killed on the battlefield almost at the endof Epiphanes' career, and the Jewish generalswho remained were not equal to him in sucha warfare. It was a belief in the Romanswhich in reality sustained the national struggle.The "three shepherds" who, according toZechariah (ch. xi. 8), were successively cutoff

by Jehovah in that great thirty years' warwere the three kings or kingdoms which havebeen just mentioned ; but that " crowningmercy" of Jehovah was treated with scorn.The crown rights of Messiah were set atnought, and disaster after a short time ofgrace was the fate of Israel (see Chap. VI.).But this " war of sons of Zion against Greece "has been discussed in our Bampton Lectureson Zechariah, and we cannot here return tothat subject.


84/220

CHAPTER VTHE WARS DEPICTED IN DAN. XI. AND XII.

It may be useful here to give a brief sketch ofthe history of the wars between Egypt andSyria as delineated in Dan. xi. 5 onwards.Assuming, as is most likely, the Massoretic

punctuation in that verse is incorrect, themeaning of verse 5 is: "And the king ofthe south (Ptolemy, king of Egypt) shallbe strong; and one of (Ptolemy's) princes(Seleucus) shall be stronger than he, and rule ;his dominion shall be a great dominion."Seleucus obtained at first an independentsatrapy, namely, of Babylonia. Owing, how-ever, to the ambition of Antigonus, Seleucuswas compelled to flee to Egypt to Ptolemyin B.C. 316, and he served for four yearsas a general of Ptolemy. He re-entered6o


85/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi., xii. 61Babylon as conqueror in B.C. 312. TheSyrian monarchy is dated from that year,although Seleucus did not assume the royaltitle till B.C. 306, when Ptolemy also assumedthe same dignity.No allusion is found in Daniel to the attackwhich Ptolemy Soter made on Jerusalem inB.C. 320, when, as Josephus relates (Antiq.,xii. 1), Jerusalem was captured on the Sabbath.On his return to Egypt, Ptolemy broughtback a number of Jews and Samaritans, whosettled there. Palestine for a time fell underthe rule of Antigonus, from whom it wasrescued by Seleucus as commander-in-chief ofthe army of Egypt.The Book of Daniel passes over the sixteen

years' reign of Seleucus' son, Antiochus I.Soter, because Antiochus I. did not come intoserious contact with the Jews. No referenceis made in Daniel to the important eventswhich were then occurring in Greece. Thereis a huge gap in the " chronicle " of some sixtyyears. No allusion is made to the impious


86/220

62 Light from Egyptian Papyriassumption of the name of God by AntiochusII. Theos.

Verse 6, however, rapidly hints at thebarbarous story of the marriage betweenAntiochus II. and the rival queens Bereniceand Laodice. See fuller sketch in Daniel andhis Prophecies, pp. 250, 251, where the diffi-culties of the Hebrew text in verse 7, and theattempts made to reconcile that verse with thefacts of history, are noticed. Ptolemy III.Euergetes was then on the throne of Egypt,and his victorious campaign against SeleucusII. Callinicus, son of Antiochus Theos andLaodice, is related in verse 8. After Ptolemyhad returned to Egypt, Seleucus II. recoveredthe territories which had been wrested fromhim. The first successes of Seleucus II. arealluded to in a slab which mentions a treatybetween Magnesia and Smyrna, and which isnow in the Marble Room, Oxford. Peacewas, however, concluded for about ten yearsbetween Syria and Egypt after the failure ofthe campaign against Egypt by Seleucus II.


87/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi., xii. 63Antiochus III., or the Great, ascended the

throne of Syria in B.C. 223. Ptolemy Euer-getes died about a year after, and wassucceeded by Ptolemy IV. Philopator. InB.C. 218 Antiochus declared war againstEgypt (Dan. xi. 10). Antiochus was, how-ever, severely beaten at Raphia (b.c. 217)(vv. 11, 12), and Ptolemy entered Jerusalemin triumph. The Jews were able to hinderthat monarch from entering the Temple.That fact, however, gave mortal offence tothe monarch, which, if 3 Maccabees can berelied on, was afterwards cruelly avenged uponthe Jews at Alexandria. Peace was soonconcluded between Syria and Egypt, and lastedtwelve years.The efforts which were made by the Jews,

who relied on the interpretations of the oldprophecies (Dan. xi. 14), to establish theirindependence, proved in vain. The king ofEgypt, Ptolemy V. Epiphanes (v. 13), put adistinguished Etolian general (Scopas) in com-mand of the Egyptian forces ; but Scopas was


88/220


89/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi., xii. 65reign of his successor, Seleucus IV. Philo-pator; but even the account given in thatverse is far from clear.

Antiochus IV. Epiphanes is then broughtupon the scene. He was the younger son ofAntiochus the Great, and had been sent toHome by his father as one of twenty hostages.Seleucus Philopator, for reasons which are notvery clear, sent later his own son Demetriusas hostage in his room. That boy, however,was only twelve years of age when his fatherwas murdered by Heliodorus. AntiochusEpiphanes, who was at the time on his roadto Antioch, rapidly pressed forward, putHeliodorus to death, and himself ascendedthe throne. His sudden arrival (v. 21) andattack (v. 24) on the boy-king Ptolemy VI.Philometor, whose ministers had declared waragainst Syria, virtually gave Antiochus thefull command of Egypt. There is no allusionmade in the histories of that time to the storyrecorded in Dan. xi. 27. Jerome has honestlyconfessed so much in his commentary. Rome5


90/220


91/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi., xii. 67It is, indeed, strange that the exploits of

the Maccabee chieftains on the field of battleshould not have been alluded to in Daniel,unless it be in the phrase, "they shall beholpen with a little help" (v. 34). The"cleansing of the sanctuary" is not evenreferred to in that chapter; and it is morethan questionable whether it is alluded to inDan. viii.

Vv. 36-39 further describe Antiochus Epi-phanes' conduct. It ought to be carefullynoted that the phrase, " he shall do accordingto his will," is employed in reference to Alex-ander the Great in Dan. xi. 3, and in referenceto Antiochus the Great in ch. xi. 16. Thetitle " wilful king " is, therefore, not one whichis specially and solely used of Antiochus Epi-phanes ; and in the clauses used in Dan. viii.12, 24, which seem to be identical, the words"his pleasure" are not found in the originaltext.The description in vv. 37-39 is a description

which does not particularly harmonise with the


92/220

68 Light from Egyptian Papyricharacter of Antiochus Epiphanes set forth inhistory, and several of the verses are morethan obscure. It must be particularly notedthat not a line with regard to his death iscontained in Daniel's prophecy or chronicle.It is absurd to suppose that at v. 40 thenarrative is carried over to "the time of theend," in the sense put upon the expression bythe Futurist expositors, i.e. the last days ofthe world's history. The whole narrative isone consecutive history, whether that narrativebe literal or ideal, and the device of " breaks "is most dishonouring to the description itself,whether it be regarded directly in all its partsas a divine revelation, or as a paraphrase ofsuch a revelation.We have already elsewhere (Daniel and hisProphecies, pp. 315, 318) called attention tothe fact, that in almost every prediction ofthe Old Testament in which temporal deliver-ances are promised, reference is made to thegrand closing deliverance of the world by theMessiah. Hence it does not surprise us to find


93/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi., xii. 69that Daniel's predictions of the things writtenin the Scriptures (" a writing of truth," ch. x.21) are no exception to that principle. Theoverthrow of the Syro-Greek power (not theindividual Antiochus) on the mountains ofJudaea, and the appearance of the great Michael(see our previous work, pp. 319-321), closesthis grand but often much-misunderstoodprophecy.The historical character of the story of

Mattathias, who, according to 1 Maccabees,was the father of the four Maccabean chief-tains, and the prime originator of the Jewishrevolt against the Syro-Greek tyranny, hasbeen called in question by Niese (Kritik derbeiden Maccabaerbiicher, 1900). His objec-tions have not, however, been supported bySchiirer in the last edition of his great work.Niese has taken up the novel line in upholdingthe Second Book of the Maccabees and rank-ing it in historical value above the First Book.As E. R. Bevan has observed (House ofSeleucus, vol. ii. p. 168, note 2), " The Second


94/220

70 Light from Egyptian PapyriBook of Maccabees has, of course, recentlyexperienced a great turn of fortune. Aftersinking to the very lowest opprobrium, so thateven when one was obliged to draw from it,one did so with a contemptuous reference, it haslately found no less a champion than Niese,and will be given the place of honour in thenext volume of his Geschichte der griechischenund makedonischen Staaten. It is an edifyingdisturbance of accepted opinion/ "Whatever arguments may be put forward

in defence of the traditional story of Matta-thias (which is passed over in 2 Mace), hiseldest son, Judas, was the real leader of theinsurrection. His first important success(mentioned in 1 Mace, hi.) was gained over alarge host which the generals of AntiochusEpiphanes had collected together from Samaria.In this battle, in which the army of Judas wasconsiderably inferior in numbers to that whichwas marshalled on the side of Antiochus,Judas slew in a hand-to-hand struggleApollonius, the general of Antiochus' army,


95/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi., xii. 71and, like David of old, took from the van-quished foe his sword, which he used in hissubsequent battles. This battle took place inB.C. 167 (1 Mace. viii. 10-12).

It was rapidly succeeded by another moreserious encounter with Seron (1 Mace. viii.13-26).The death of Antiochus Epiphanes occurred

in B.C. 164. That he perished shortly after anattempt to take forcible possession of thetreasures stored up in a heathen temple istolerably certain, but the details of his deathare somewhat conflicting. His young son,Antiochus Eupator, who was only nine yearsof age, succeeded him on the throne, whichhe occupied for a brief period of less thantwo years. He was ably supported by Lysias,who appears to have been a general of con-siderable ability. He was defeated by JudasMaccabeus in two battles (those of Emmausand Bethsur) which are recorded in 1 Mace,iii. and iv., after which (b.c. 164) the Templewas cleansed and rededicated.


96/220

72 Light from Egyptian PapyriThe ban had to some extent been taken off

the Jewish religion, as E. R. Bevan points out,and a certain amount of religious liberty hadbeen granted by the new king on the adviceof Lysias. The religious struggle seems tohave been closed, although the struggle fornational independence was only begun. Thevictory at Bethsur was not decisive.Demetrius Soter, son of Seleucus IV., was

the proper heir to the Syrian throne, thoughput aside by his uncle, Antiochus Epiphanes.He had grown up to manhood at Rome. Henow (b.c. 162) escaped from Rome, proceededrapidly to Babylon and Syria, assumed thegovernment, put Antiochus Eupator andLysias at once to death, and by a judicioususe of treasure, as everything was venal inRome, secured his recognition as king by thesenate and people.The Maccabean chiefs began to feel the

inherent weakness of their own position inb.c. 160. They possessed no legal right tothe high-priesthood, nor did they possess any


97/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi., xii. 73right to sit and rule upon the throne of David.But their tendency, for political reasons, wasto ignore these disabilities. Demetrius, whensettled on the throne, soon saw the mistakewhich they had made, and the religious libertywhich had then been obtained weakenedvery considerably the nationalist movement.Alcimus, the Hebrew form of which namewas Jakim, who appears to have been " a priestof the seed of Aaron" (1 Mace. vii. 14), wasput forth as a rival to the Maccabeans. Hewas a man of no religious feeling, and isspoken of in both books of the Maccabees as" most wicked," and one who was ready to handup the treasures of the Temple to DemetriusSoter. He was appointed high priest in B.C.160. Judas Maccabeus defeated that yearNicanor at Capharsalama (1 Mace. viii. 31),and afterwards at Adasa, where Nicanor waskilled (1 Mace. viii. 39-50).

Judas, despairing of help from other quarters,entered that year into correspondence with theRomans, with the view of making a treaty with


98/220

74 Light from Egyptian Papyrithem. But Bacchides, one of the generals ofDemetrius, was soon despatched with a strongforce to avenge the death of Nicanor, and Judaswas at last defeated and slain at the battle ofEleasa (1 Mace, ix., B.C. 160). Alcimus, who,after the battle of Adasa, had fled to Antioch,returned to Jerusalem and took up again hispost of high/priest, and as strongly opposed tothe Maccabean party. Jonathan was appointedas the successor of Judas ; a strong chain ofgarrison-posts was built in Judaea. Alcimusdied shortly after of a stroke of paralysis, afterhe had commenced the work of pulling downthe wall of the inner court of the sanctuary(1 Mace. ix. 54-57).

In B.C. 156 Bacchides made peace withJonathan, who was recognised by AlexanderBalas or Epiphanes, the pretended son ofAntiochus Epiphanes, as high priest andking's friend; and Jonathan Maccabeus worethe golden crown and purple robe sent to himby that king at the Feast of Tabernacles.Demetrius too late attempted to adopt a


99/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi., xii. 75similar line of policy. War soon brokeout between Alexander Balas and Demetrius,and. the latter, who was defeated, was killedin flight from the battle. This was inB.C. 150.

It may be well, to show the gradual growthof independence in Judaea, to give a few datesup to the Christian era. This chronologicalchronicle will show also what an uncertainthing Jewish independence really was, andmoreover show that the destruction of thenational hopes was caused in very deed by thefalling away from the real national religion.Had the Maccabee chieftains been content tosimply act as the judges of Israel, and waitedfor the Messiah to restore all things, Jewishindependence would have been placed upona sure basis.

B.C. 147. Apollonius, governor of Ccelo-Syriaand supporter of Demetrius II., son of Deme-trius Soter, was defeated by Jonathan atAzotus (Ashdod). Jonathan burnt the templeof Dagon, which was at the time crowded with


100/220


101/220

Wars depicted in Dan. xi.> xii. 77Mattathias' five sons, became high priest andprince.

B.C. 143. Tryphon put Antiochus VI., sonof Alexander Balas, to death, and usurpedhimself the

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jose-luis-alonso
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Wright, Light From Egyptian Papyri

Documents